Rethinking Genesis 1: A New Proposal
By Trevin Wax on Nov 5, 2009 in Book Reviews | 
Print This Post
| Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
I enjoy books that push me out of my comfort zone and cause me to ask questions I had never considered before. John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP, 2009) is one of those kinds of books. Walton offers an interpretation of Genesis 1 that focuses on the worldview of ancient Israelites.
In a nutshell, here is Walton’s proposal: Genesis 1 was not intended to give us a scientific understanding of the material origins of the universe. Instead, the seven days of creation are a cosmic temple inauguration ceremony that describe the functional beginning of our world.
If your eyes have already glazed over after reading that summary, then consider his illustration about a college. At what point is a college created? Is it when the buildings go up? Or when the students and faculty arrive on campus and classes begin? Or when the commencement ceremony begins?
Walton’s proposal is that Genesis 1 does not give us a narrative of when matter began to exist. The narrative concerns functional origins: when the world began to function the way God intended for human creation to flourish.
Walton writes:
“
I believe that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” (26)
In case some might wonder if Walton is denying the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), he clarifies:
“I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point a creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question. What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (44)
Walton’s view could be classified as a highly sophisticated version of the older Gap theory (that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). It differs from the Gap theory in that Walton argues for a functional understanding of “create” all throughout the passage.
But it resembles the Gap theory by leaving room for a large span of time and material development that does not hinder the seven day creation process that occurs as the cosmic temple inauguration.
I appreciate Walton’s careful treatment of the text. He refuses to get bogged down in trying to reconcile the ancient text with modern scientific understanding:
Taking the text seriously is not expressed by correlating it with modern science; it is expressed by understanding it in its ancient context.” (111)
Walton’s proposal has much to commend it. I have never been fully persuaded by the Day-Age theory (that the days in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time) or by the Young Earth view (that the seven days took place in sequence ten thousand years ago). Walton’s proposal offers the best of both worlds (inerrancy and science). The Day-Age and Young-Earth theories have never been completely convincing to me because it always seems like people are trying to read more out of the text than is there. (It reminds me of how so many interpreters tackle Revelation.) I am impressed by the way in which Walton seeks to deal seriously with the biblical text, regardless of the implications.
Yet, I have unresolved questions regarding this view. In the end, I have two main concerns.
1. This is a novel interpretation. That is, it has not been a primary interpretation throughout church history. I would be interested to know how ancient Jewish scholars commented on this text.
From my admittedly limited research, I see that many in the ancient world did indeed consider this text to be about material origins. Ancient commentaries do not, of course, change the biblical text. But it does soften the brunt of Walton’s proposal, which argues that virtually all the ancients thought of creation stories in the way he proposes.
2. The implications of Walton’s proposal may create separate spheres of knowledge. The desire to leave science and theology in separate spheres seems like a good way to keep controversy at bay.
Of course, science and theology impinge upon one another, as Walton would surely agree. Still, I am not sure that saying the Bible does not speak at all to the “how” of material origins is a resolution of the issue, but merely a way of relegating the origins discussion to the peripheral.
Asking “Where did we come from” is never a peripheral issue, as Walton would also admit. But I wonder if his proposal might lead some to the quick conclusion, “See? Who cares whether or not we evolved?” (And I do not find evolution to be persuasive as a model, even when it is of the theistic variety.)
John Walton is a recognized evangelical OT scholar. He is the co-author of one of the most respected evangelical OT Introductions in print. I am thankful for his commitment to the truthfulness of the biblical text. His interpretation is novel, but his research is impressive. The Lost World of Genesis One deserves further reflection and discussion. I look forward to seeing where the conversation leads.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post
| Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
While not a “primary” interpretation in church history, elements of this are out there. Genesis is indeed seen as a building of a temple and also as a procession. God creates and divides (e.g. “God said, “Let there be light”… God then separated the light from the darkness.” He did the same with the water, etc.) Then, as in ancient world religions, the image of the god would be placed within the temple, in this case, man. As a procession, we see creation, and God’s people, and ultimately the Church marching through time, recapitulating that which happened earlier (e.g. Solomon building the temple, pushing for completion in 7 years as if tipping his hat to the 7 day creation narrative.) Too much to go into in a thread comment, but suffice it to say, types and shadows unpack biblical narratives in a way as to tie all of scriptures together into a marvelous procession – a procession that we are a part of today. Amazing stuff, and I haven’t even touched on the “communion of saints” which takes this even deeper still.
brian | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Trevin, I’d commend to you Dr. Jason Lisle’s book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation. You can read my seven-part review at the linked website. I find it strange that you think the proponents of the “young earth” view are “trying to read more out of the text than is there.” It’s about as straightforward as you can get.
Chip Crush | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Chip,
I don’t think the seven-day issue is where the YEC tries to read too much into the text. I think it’s where the speculation comes in later as YEC tries to wrestle with scientific data that appears to be conflicting.
I think Walton is right. The best way to read Genesis 1 is that the seven days are seven literal days.
Trevin Wax | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
The problem for me with evolution fitting the Genesis 1 narrative is not based primarily on my belief in a literal 7-day creation (though I indeed hold that view). Rather, even if we establish that the earth is older or that there is enough time for evolution to occur within the biblical narrative, there remains a distinct theological problem. Natural selection is based on survival of the fittest, and thus, death is a necessary part of evolution. Yet, theologically, death is a result of the fall. Thus, I see no way to reconcile macro-evolutionary science with the Genesis account no matter how long the time frame.
Blessings,
Todd
Todd Benkert | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Brian is right, elements of this have been out there for quite a while. The view I learned was similar to this one as you have described it. The creation account was written not to provide an answer to evolutionists but to answer ancient cosmogonies.
Michael | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Todd,
That’s one of my hang-ups with the old earth view too. I have to accept animal death as existing before the fall. Theologically, that’s an issue that pulls me back.
Of course, the old-earth side will argue that even if animals were plant-eating, there is death. The leaf that falls from the tree in the Fall is dead, yet it is a beautiful part of God’s good creation.
Trevin Wax | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
It also reminds of Aristotle’s four causes, all of them are relevant. Is the functional cause of understanding and timing not meaningful? I think that may be what Walton is trying to say.
David | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
I would argue that death of all kinds is a result of the fall (of Adam, not Autumn
Thus, any view in which death occurs prior to Adam, for whatever reason, is an errant view.
Blessings,
Todd
Todd Benkert | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Good article. I believe in the Big Bang. To put it as Dr. EV Hill said, “God took a handful of nothing, threw it nowhere, and BANG, He created the universe.” Now that’s big! Okay, this doesn’t really explain anything. Maybe we aren’t supposed to know how He did it; we are just supposed to trust that He did. I can’t say that the literal seven day idea is any more, or less, correct than the gap theory. But it is nice to ponder these things from time to time. Let’s just not lose our perspective. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” Wondering how is okay, but don’t forget Who.
Rev. Tim Lehmann | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Greetings Kingdom People,
Regarding the various (credible) creation positions – what does this one make – is this number 6? – Old earth, young earth, framework, analogical day view, gap theory, and now this one (some might include theistic evolution)
This view is interesting! I do like that this view allows for age of the universe and earth be what they measure.
(I would say) It is a difficult position to say that the universe and earth are young (6000 years old).
We know that “truth” is a property of a statement that conforms with reality.
To say the universe measure 15.7 billion years old or the earth is 4 billion years old cannot be called false statements. Perhaps you can call them false but the person claiming it can simply point to the measurement.
To say that the earth is 6000 years old does not conform with reality – again point to the various measurements.
I think it would be very difficult to be a Christian scientist if one HAS to hold to a young earth position.
Consider the following situation –
What does this historical document date to? – 200 years old – and it conforms with what we know.
What about this artifact from China – 1500 B.C. – and we know it conforms to the history we know.
But know we find something that dates to say 15,000 years old, a strict young earth position states that you can’t claim that measurement – you have to go ask a young-earth Christian how old it really is.
I see difficulties being an honest astrophysicist, cosmologist, paleontologist, astro-biologist, geologist, zoologist, and so on.
Anyway – just some thoughts.
-Jennifer
Jennifer | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Regarding death prior to the fall, check out Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology. For more biblical theology concerning the temple and function, look into G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission. Great stuff from great scholars. As for Walton, his book is great in that it causes one to think. I would love to see his further comments on function in light of Genesis 3. What happens with the functionality of creation post-fall? What does this say about Jesus’ work in regards to the fall? Interesting stuff.
Scott E | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Interesting, I’m not so sure thatnthese ideas are novel. Mnay excellent theories have abounded [read my Genesis study on my blog- i recently went thru some]but he does make some good points
corpuschristioutreachministries | Nov 6, 2009 | Reply
Very good review. Walton’s viewpoint is not new, but something espoused 100-150 years ago, fading into the ignorant abyss among Christians – replaced with the failure of understanding the God does not create things void (in vain) [Is 45:18].
Since satan is already in the garden by Gen 3, his rebellion and fall to earth preceeded the story of man and his relationship with God as the Bible is written for us [Ez 28, Is 14].
Thus, that the earth became formless and void is understood in the context that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 are chronological, though not immediately sequential, a tough concept for people to comprehend. But the Hebrew concept of eternity is to be “timeless” or “without time.”
We are therefore left with Gen 1 as a picture ofthe Gospel – that God created everything – that Satan rebelled and was cast down, thus corrupting the virgin beauty of the earth (became formless and void), that God recreated or regenerated the earth (light established in darkness, seperation by predetination, third day resurrection from the land…days 1, 2 and 3 – a repeat for population – heavens of stars, Sun and moon (believers, Jesus and Israel/church in phases), the birds and fish that dwell in seperation, and finally the new creation – the First Adam).
Early brethren (those in the movement known as the Plymouth Brethren which started with Darby and led to the re-acquantence of rapture, dispensationalism, and New Testament church pricniples which decried heresies like replacement theology and the apostolic signs and wonders in the church) often spoke and wrote on these matters. Most expressively was hyper-dispensationalist E.W. Bullinger.
We don’t really need another book about God’s Word – we all just need to be reading the Bible and let the Holy Spirit teach us all things. Nevertheless, Walton places his credibility among those who are “respecter’s of persons”: which may impact a few on the fence…for as Paul says, we are not to be “ignorant brethren.”
Dr D | Nov 6, 2009 | Reply